W3C

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

03 Mar 2015

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Chair
SteveZ
Scribe
Jeff

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 03 March 2015

<scribe> scribe: Jeff

Issue-152

SZ: Wayne Carr has raised issues with my examples.
... been discussed over email.
... he thinks we can adequately define "editorial"
... gave a suggestion

Mike: We won't resolve before we send to the AC
... with an annotation of open issues
... what you cited is what the AB discussed
... Wayne may think these are not persuasive, but they are still the AB's examples
... so we should expose to the AC

Steve: Jeff

?

[ Silence ]

Steve: no particular opinion?

[Jeff: correct]

Steve: Simplest thing is to go with my draft text
... possibly adding a comment to the last paragraph - some people believe that can add a definition

Mike: We are trying to get the AC's advice
... where to draw the line: flexibility v. IP issues
... IP dictates process steps; exclusion calls
... is flexibility worth the risk?
... our CG can frame it; we can't decide

Steve: I see a way forward incorporating Wayne's input and David Singer's input.
... I will update draft text based on discussion and Wayne's comments
... small change
... draft letter received small comments from Jeff - that we had done a lot
... text seemed to imply we did a little
... I pointed out small change to my paragraph to make clear.
... Jeff?

Jeff: Fine.

Mike: We did more than we signed up for. We can always move stuff to 2016.
... we don't need to resolve everything for Process2015

Steve: CG came to consensus so it is asking for input from AC.
... we've also kept the AC in the loop

[David Singer joins]

Jeff: Who signs the letter?

Steve: Same 3 people as last time (Steve, Chaals, Jeff)

Jeff: So I can send it out as soon as I have the letter?

Steve: No, we still need the document from Chaals.

Dave: We also need a diff document.

Steve: Dave, did we get all the issues that you nailed to the door?

Dave: I'll need to check.

Steve: Back to issue-152
... it's an ongoing discussion - my note for inclusion in the document merely indicates different viewpoints
... should go ahead with the not - even though exammples are note best
... I could add your silly example.

David: Could we put it into cover letter rather than process document?

Steve: Makes sense.

David: We shouldn't have an issue pointer in the process document.

Steve: I will move the long text to the cover letter
... the issue is whether we can adequately define editorial change
... in a manner that can be adequately verified, w/o an exclusion call
... I can put that in without the examples
... would that work?

Dave: Probably.

Mike: It's fine.

Jeff: Yup.

ack

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask about the AC meeting

Jeff: Do we you want time in AC meeting about Process2016?

Steve: Wait for AB meeting

Jeff: How much time do you need for Process2015?

Steve: 15 minutes plenary; 45 minutes breakout

Mike: Raman and I would both be quite interested in a discussion of Process2016
... we would both be interested in a discussion about CGs
... CGs merged with WGs
... Raman worries that CG outputs get thrown at WGs
... that doesn't motivate people
... a defined jump start would be better

<Dsinger_> Suggest we ask the ac, in the cover letter, whether anyone needs a breakout.

<Dsinger_> I thought we already have the notion that a CG fsa can become a wg fpwd

<Dsinger_> Fsa - document from the CG that has had a final spec agreement signed

Jeff: Panel about Process2016?

Mike and Steve: We're in!

<Dsinger_> What can you do today, what could we improve?

Dave: What is the problem? It is not hard to bring a document from a CG to a WG?

Mike: I'll write that up in the next day or so.

Steve: Plus we have a standing issue: what about CGs should be in the process?

Issue-128

<trackbot> issue-128 -- Lack of test cases is a major contributor to schedule delay. -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/128

Steve: Chaals has suggested that we close this issue.

<Dsinger_> Agree that this is not a process but an operations issue

Mike: Anything else we could do in the process document?

Steve: We put some text into "implementation experience". That's already been done.

[Steve reads the text]

Mike: I would close it if there is no concrete proposal to fix it.

Steve: Exactly.

Mike: Who raised it?

Steve: me. I had to write issues raised with Process2014.

Mike: Yes, this is more in the hands of the Chair and Team.

David: Process says the right thing. Beyond that it is operations.

Steve: Exactly.
... Resolved. Close Issue-128

<SteveZ> RESOLUTION: Issue-128 is closed with reference to the final paragraph of section 7.2.4 Implementation Experience

Steve: I should update Issue 151.
... not enough time to discuss Issue 100.

<Dsinger_> Ok

Steve: next week: prior to AB meeting we will do a quick review of open items for Process2016.

[adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/03/03 16:04:41 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/not/note/
Succeeded: s|silence/\| Silence |
Succeeded: s/... no particular opinion/Steve: no particular opinion/
Succeeded: s/zakim, make minutes//
Succeeded: s|Thx, apologies for lateness and bus/street noise||
Succeeded: s/issue-128?/Topic: Issue-128/
Found Scribe: Jeff
Inferring ScribeNick: jeff

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Dave David Dsinger_ Jeff Mike Mike_Champion P9 SZ Steve SteveZ dsinger timeless trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Found Date: 03 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/03-w3process-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]